Step 1) Set up something you are calling ‘open’ as a straw man by projecting a narrow and weak understanding of openness onto it.

Step 2) Attack this understanding of ‘open’.*

Step 3) Present your own version of ‘open’ as an alternative. This allows you to be the hero of your own narrative by in effect saving ‘open’ from itself.

No need to worry about your version of open having already been explored in a more nuanced and rigorous fashion within the movements for open access, open education, open knowledge and so forth. The beauty of this simple, easy to replicate 3-step process is that, by setting up open as a straw man and defining it in a way that serves your own interests, you avoid having to pay attention to any of this.

References available on request.

* Important: if your critique involves making a careful reading of thinkers from the history of openness, you absolutely must, must, must remember not to show the same kind of ethical responsibility and hospitality toward contemporary thinkers of what you are calling ‘open’.

Updated on 9 January, 2018.
Except where otherwise indicated, content on Media Gifts can be distributed, reproduced, transmitted, translated, modified, remixed, built upon, used and 'pirated' in any medium, even without indication of origin. (This does not affect any rights others may have in it or in how it is used.)
Given the lack of a licence that is consistent with the (inhumanist) approach to copyright that is articulated and enacted on Media Gifts, this statement is provided to acknowledge yet deny the copyrighting that is performed by default by a public domain CC-O licence or when all rights are otherwise waived.